Confederate Yankee
February 21, 2006
"Senator Feingold Praises Benedict Arnold"
Jason Smith is on a tear...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:35 AM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Arnold's contribution to the revolution was extrordinary. Possibly no other single individual did so much at that time. He then turned on his people, maybe he could see what was coming.
Posted by: David Caskey at February 21, 2006 10:11 AM (6wTpy)
2
I guess if Benedict Arnold turned on his own people because he may have seen what was coming - assuming that all that is bad now can be blamed on some mythical Republican boogeyman - why the hell are you still around?
Some people are really stupid - and not at all thankful for all of what we enjoy as Americans.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 21, 2006 10:59 AM (nacM2)
3
I am sorry but I feel both parties suck. Bush is just the lesser of the evils. As to sticking around. I will remind you that my forefathers tried to form their own country and were killed as a consequence. As to being stupid, perhaps if people would wake up and look around, they would find that we are broke and that the original mission of our government has been changed to such an extent that the founding fathers likely would not recognize it. As to the love it or leave it theory, I say it is past time say bull to their ridicule and that we need drastic change.
Posted by: David Caskey at February 21, 2006 02:46 PM (iP0xq)
4
How do you propose to effect that change, Caskey? A revolution against the White House and Congress and the Supreme Court? You know, by force of the few against the majority? Sounds a lot like the Bolsheviks to me.
Others of your ilk have the same lame ideas. When things don't go right for their narrow views at the ballot box, start a revolution.
A dummie named Cary Tennis wriote the same sort of seditionist nonsense in a recent issue of Salon Magazine.
I have a better idea. Get your pathetic ass out of OUR country.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 21, 2006 05:19 PM (nacM2)
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 21, 2006 07:54 PM (0fZB6)
6
”Arnold's contribution to the revolution was extrordinary. Possibly no other single individual did so much at that time. He then turned on his people…”
George Washington, perhaps? Regardless, just what is Benedict Arnold known for today? He is NOT considered to be one of the founding fathers. He was and remains to be known as a traitor. Arnold was a soldier who at the last minute decided the colonies could not win – much like Murtha. If Arnold was alive today, the Democrats would make him their Senate Minority leader.
In case there is any question, I have little tolerance for those who wore this country’s uniform or served nationally and then advocate against it. As for those who never wore the uniform and advocate against it; I say leave. Immigration is still possible. So, immigrate to Europe where the “progressive” atmosphere is more to your mindset; but stop trying to socialize this country – we don’t want your socialism!
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 22, 2006 07:29 AM (X2tAw)
7
His new image: Benedict Feingold.
Posted by: Kevin F at March 16, 2006 08:54 AM (UdJCa)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
NATO Terror... It's Yugo-rrific!
While cruising alGore's internet this past weekend to find an analogy for something as finely tuned as President Bush's various border policies, I just happened to come across the Wikipedia entry for the Yugo.
For those of you who might have forgotten (and those of you still trying to forget), the Yugo is to compact automobiles what the English are to fine dining, the French are to bathing, and radical Muslims are to satire whether the understand the word, or not.
Currently the
Wikipedia entry for the Yugo is a bit sparse:
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards and appeal to a wider international audience, this article may require cleanup.
The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view.
Do tell.
Luckily, I managed to obtain a screen capture before the offending content was brought down, so you don't have to guess what "may not represent a worldwide view."
A larger, more legible (but no more coherent) capture is
here.
Apparently, the writer is miffed that U.S. precision bombing isn't as accurate as he thinks it should be, as a U.S. air strike hit the automobile assembly line and
not the weapons production lines on the underground floors below the automobile assembly line, or because—drumroll please—the United States was targeting the car assembly line on
purpose all along.
Of
course we were.
Fear the country that fears your Yugo.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:22 AM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Boy, the big three really dodged a bullet when the Yugo factory got hit! I think Yugo had upwards of 50% of the US market share prior to that.
Good one
Posted by: Kevin at February 21, 2006 07:24 AM (o/IMK)
2
I remember watching Yugo try to make it up the hill on Interstate 15 going out of Bakersville. It couldn't get up to like more that 20mph at top end....too funny. An Autobahn type of car, no?
Posted by: Specter at February 21, 2006 11:01 AM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Israel Guns Down Top Terrorist
Israel takes out the trash:
GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip — Israeli forces in the West Bank city of Nablus early Monday shot and killed Islamic Jihad's top commander in the region, the militant group said.
Lt. Col. Benjamin Shick, an Israeli commander, said his forces caught a group of militants, including Ahmed Abu Sharik, 30, off guard on the second day of a raid in Nablus.
"We found a group of people we have been seeking for a while and we went for them," he said. "We know every street and alley, where they are and where they hide."
Military officials said Abu Sharik had been involved in numerous attacks on Israeli soldiers, and he helped plan a recent suicide attack in Tel Aviv. The army also arrested 15 militants overnight throughout the West Bank.
Interesting thing about 5.56mm NATO. It may not work all that well, but when it does, the bad guys are rarely are set free on appeal...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:01 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
February 20, 2006
Pro-al Qaeda Students Join Coalition Forces For Weapons Testing Internships
In a bold show of solidarity with coalition forces, hundreds of pro-al Qaeda students have stated they may assist in joint testing of U.S. and Afghani government weapons systems.
U.S. forces will test their targeting, guidance, and propulsion systems, while the pro-al Qaeda students will test warhead effectiveness.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
08:28 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
The liberals should be so proud; a cooperative agreement has been reached.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 20, 2006 09:57 PM (owAN1)
2
I strongly encourage repeated follow on testing of the accuracy of these new weapons
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at February 23, 2006 08:46 AM (JSetw)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
No "Free Speech Abuse"
Paul Geary blasts those supporting the thought crime of "free speech abuse" in The New Editor:
I contend there is no such thing as free speech "abuse." The perceived need to equivocate on free speech in order to display the appropriate sensitivities misses the point altogether. The bigot who uses racial epithets, however repugnant they may be to most of us, isn't abusing his speech freedom, he's exercising it. The pornographer isn't abusing free press, he's exercising it. The civil rights marchers who invaded southern towns in the 1960s were accused of "abusing" free speech. Thank God they did.
Dan Riehl
admonishes:
Name it for freedom, or name it for unity, or name it as you will. But stand together nationally, with as much scope as you can, and make a clear statement against intimidation and threat and jointly publish the cartoons.
The alternative will only be ever more editorials like the one below and a nation that won't believe you when you tell us of the value of freedom of expression, for which you especially purport to stand. If you lack the courage of conviction to stand up for the very principles upon which our free press was formed, than you relinquish the right to expect others to defend you in the face of any coming storm.
As Benjamin Franklin said at the signing of the Declaration of Independence, "We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:28 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I read the Bill of Rights, and all I see is that Congress shall pass no law.
But there should be social mores about speech, as in, what is proper, and responsible. And, the way I read the 1st, others can pass law other then Congress.
Unfortunately, the same moonbats who clamor for their free speech want to restrict everyone else.
Posted by: William Teach at February 20, 2006 02:21 PM (TFSHk)
2
William, ever read any of the old state blue laws? They were restrictive relative to speech and morals. Profanity was not allowed, promiscuous speech and dress and acts were not allowed. So, yes, the states should be able to legislated what they feel is right or not. The congress just cannot do it at the federal level. Unfortunately, the federal bench has a tendency to overrule state's legislature.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 20, 2006 10:02 PM (owAN1)
3
Exactly, OS. But, don't tell the libs. We wouldn't want them to learn anything about that
Posted by: William Teach at February 21, 2006 09:00 AM (V5vwb)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Shooting Blanks
In the past few days, much attention has be paid to a short video compiled by a man by the name of Alex Jones who claims to have proven that Vice President Dick Cheney shot a fellow hunter, Harry Whittington, at a much closer distance than the 30 yards that has been accepted and uncontested by federal (Secret Service), state (Texas Parks and Wildlife), and local (Kenedy County) law enforcement.
Dan Riehl
gutted the Jones video Saturday with precision, and even this liberal bird hunter
concurs, but the logic of their statements haven't
sunken in yet, and so I thought I would give it a try myself, even though no amount of logic can overcome a closed mind.
The Shotguns: Buicks and Maybachs
The firearm used by Alex Jones in his video is an unidentified side-by-side shotgun of undetermined origin, manufacture, and condition, presumably a general mass-produced shotgun like the vast majority of firearms in the world today. Vince President Cheney's Perazzi is a custom-fitted, hand-made over-under competition-grade shotgun.
Incredibly, Alex Jones tries to pass off shotguns of different basic design, layout, and manufacture as being identical (or at least being close enough). The closest he comes to validating the shotgun he uses is when Jones states that the
shotgun is "the same length" as that used by the Vice President. That said, he doesn't explain that unlike rifles, shotgun barrel length does not have a significant impact on accuracy or velocity. All that Jones
does substantiate is that both his firearm and Cheney's are both 28-gauge shotguns.
The Ammunition
In addition to passing off very dissimilar shotguns as being the same, he attempts to pass of the same broad generalization as being specific enough with his mention of shotgun ammunition. In short, how does Jones know he is using the "exact same shot?"
Who made the ammunition he used in his test, and was it a harder-hitting game load, or a lighter target load using both less powder and shot? Three major ammunition manufacturers make loadings for the 28-gauge shotgun that uses size #7 ½ shot. A virtually limitless number of smaller, custom ammunition manufacturers also have this same capability.
Winchester makes
two loadings, a lighter shooting AA target loading that fires ¾ oz of shot at 1300 fps (feet per second), and a harder hitting “Super X” game loading that fires 33% more shot, or 1 full ounce of # 7 1/2 shot, with a maximum powder loading, at 1205 fps.
Federal Cartridge manufactures a Premium Wing-Shok Hi-Brass loading for the 28-gauge that fires at 1295 fps, 3/4 ounce of #7 1/2 shot that, interesting enough, happens to be copper plated. Copper-plating makes shot less prone to deformation, and typically contributes to a tighter shot pattern that lead shot.
Remington makes their Express Extra Long Range 28-gauge using #7 1/2 shot to perform at 1285 fps with a ¾ oz shot loading.
Every single manufacturer uses slightly different primers, powder, wads and shot.
Every single one of these shells patterns differently,
even from the same firearm.
It is very important to note that nothing Alex Jones says about the ability of Dick Cheney's shotgun to pattern is valid. Froma forensic perspective, the firearm and ammunition combination Jones used for "testing" are little more than theatrical props.
The Chokes
Another point of interest is that Jones either knows next to nothing about shotgun chokes, or he simply cannot talk about them articulately. A choke is nothing more than the tapered constriction of the muzzle end of a shotgun used to focus the concentration of shot to varying degrees.
He speaks of firing a shot through the "larger barrel," which is false statement, as the barrel of even a wide-open, un-choked cylinder bore is not larger, but is the same diameter of the rest of the barrel. Somehow, we are supposed to trust the “expertise” of a man who does not know his own weapon.
He fires a shot through this "larger barrel," and while we are not able to see the pattern of the shot, by his description is that with the ammunition he uses, it patterns poorly at 30 yards.
He then speaks of shooting "through the choked barrel." He later states this barrel uses a modified choke, but that it patterns poorly as well. I felt from the beginning that Jones was comparing his Pontiac of a shotgun to Cheney's
Maybach, and this would seem to support that supposition.
Jones says his choke is modified, but is unable to tell us what the chokes on the Vice President's shotgun may be. There are no less than
nine chokes for shotguns, ranging from the un-constricted cylinder bore through skeet 1, the common improved cylinder, sheet 2, modified (the claimed choke of the second barrel of Jones' shotgun), improved modified, full, extra full, and turkey chokes.
In review, Jones uses a different basic shotgun design and unknown ammunition, from chokes that may not be similar, and attempts to fool a largely gun-ignorant audience into believing that he is creating a valid test situation. He is not.
What About Bob?
In addition to creating an invalid test situation by comparing dissimilar shotguns and unknown ammunition (with only the shotgun gauge remaining similar between the two firearms), Jones selects the oddest of targets for comparison, including my old friend, BOB. I worked at a sporting good store some years ago, and I watched as BOB took punches ever hour, twelve hours a day, every day of the week. Bob is a
lot tougher than Harry Whittington.
BOB, or the Body Opponent Bag, is a martial arts striking mannequin, with "skin" composed of a thick, very resilient, dense and yet flexible rubber compound made to takes thousands of punches and strikes from some martial arts weapons. When compared to human flesh, BOB's rubber skin is far thicker, more dense and far more resilent.
The degree of Jones' deception is compounded by the physiology of the skin
in the elderly:
By the time we reach old age our mature skin may well have experienced decades of sun exposure, even if only at very low levels. This is associated with the effects of intrinsic aging. The result as we see it is almost always a balance of the two.
Elderly skin can be very dry and almost paper-thin, with the structures in the dermis clearly visible. The TEWL is increased, and the skin becomes more fragile and prone to injuries: with the lack of protection from the dermis, the small blood vessels become vulnerable to breakage and bursting ('broken veins').
BOB's strike-proof rubber hide is a far cry from the skin of the average person, and even further away from the paper-thin skin of a 78-year old like Harry Whittington. Alex Jones could not be further from the truth when he states that Bob's thick rubber hide is "soft rubber, very similar to human skin." That is simply an untrue statement. I suspect it is far closer to being a purposeful lie.
The Shooting
Jones then make claims about the birdshot that hit Harry Whittington that he cannot factually support.
He claims that some of the shotgun pellets from Cheney's shotgun penetrated three layers of clothing that Harry Whittington was wearing, passed through his ribs and his pericardium, and into his heart. The first doctor's to treat Whittington, including a surgeon,
never claimed pellets penetrated Whittington's rib cage. The
shot migrated to Whittington's heart, it did not penetrate there.
The vast majority of shot to hit Harry Whittington hit exposed flesh on the right side of his face, neck, and shoulder (upper right chest), more than likely through the open neck of the button-down shirt typically worn while quail hunting, as shown below.
Counting Pellets
In addition, while Jones and others have claimed Whittington was hit by 200 pellets, they misstate what the doctor actually said. What the doctors once stated is that
up to 200 pellets may have hit Whittington, but they never claimed that 200 pellets necessarily
did hit Whittington. 200 pellets
could have hit him,
but only about half that (and
here) actually did according to the most recent reports.
The False Charge
Alex Jones directly charges that Vice President Dick Cheney shot Harry Whittington from 15-18 feet away.
That is the width of average American living room. At that distance, a mass of shot weighing 3/4 of an ounce would have spread (as a
liberal bird-hunting blogger concurs) only about 4-5 inches, and would have hit with enough velocity that it would have penetrated deeply into the body, shredding internal organs and obliterating bone, regardless of how much clothing was worn, as one of my commentors to
this post can personally attest. Chances of anyone surviving this kind of hit to the upper torso are slight.
So does anyone—any rational person—actually think that a 78 year-old man, when shot in the chest, face and neck with a shotgun from a distance only as wide as a living room, would walk out of a hospital under his own power and be able to give a press statement less than a week later? It is, quite literally almost impossible. And yet...
...here he is, even wearing a coat and tie.
The Conspiracy Unravels
Jones further claims that the police were kept in the dark to allow time for nefarious forces to somehow orchestrate a cover-up. He purposefully ignores the fact that federal law enforcement officers (the Secret Service) were with the Vice President's party the entire time, and that the Secret Service
called local authorities shortly after the shooting. It was the local
sherriff's decision not to interview Cheney until Sunday. This bears repeating: the proper authorites were
immediately notified, and they conducted their investigation without interference.
Of course, Alex Jones is attempting to justify a conspiracy theory to persecute a political figure he personally demonizes, and inconvenient facts such as these merely get in the way.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:36 AM
| Comments (10)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
"...no amount of logic can overcome a closed mind." You might have included "or facts."
I suspect Jones may pander magic shows for kids' birthday parties on weekends. He certainly isn't a very enlightened shootist. Even a novice shooter possesses more basic knowledge than Jones exhibited.
Being one who is looking forward to buying a totally gussied up "1874 Long Range Express" model of one of these: http://www.shilohrifle.com/ chambered for .45-120 merely to punch holes in targets at 500 and greater yards, I was intending to do what you have done - debunk Jones as an amateur agenda-ized manipulator. I’m glad you took the time to put this great post together. Unfortunately, as you indicated, closed minds will not accept your factual presentation. That’s okay; I much prefer the company of straight shooting conservatives versus liberals who cannot consistently identify that the enemy as not us!
Great job, my friend, keep up the excellent work
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 20, 2006 09:49 AM (owAN1)
2
Well, what struck me about the entire post was your attempt to gloss over the picture of alien hunters from outer space. No wonder cow mutilations are up...
Here we have two "hunters"--both armed with advanced technology weapons disguised as prmitive shotguns...they are dressed in conventional hunting outfits and wearing traditional orange safety gear--however, look closely!!!
Look at their faces. They are without shape or normal human features--and they are green. Everyone knows aliens are green (it's the copper in their blood--just like Spok had) and they can't cover their faces with scarves or masks for fear of being mistaken as Arab Terrorists and drawing attention to themselves. So, here we have distict proof that aliens do exist and visit earth in disguises such as hunters (a Republican sport)--yet you and your other convervative cohorts ignore this obvious fact and try to cover it up with a bunch of Cheney nonsense. That picture proves there are aliens among us!
But there's more...
As you can see, the picture was taken in the desert--in Area 51 to be exact. Don't let the "truck hood" fool you--that's an alien craft designed to look like a truck and "blend in" with its surroundings. But, note how the "silvery" color and rounded features gives it away.
How's that for a hunting conspiracy, huh?
Posted by: WB at February 20, 2006 12:12 PM (w1Iqz)
3
Excellent summary of the facts that have bearing on this unfortunate accident, CY. The composition of the surface of Bob's face was the first point that made me not want to watch much more of Alex's so-called scientific inquiry. I did watch all of the video. Same conclusion: Alex probably never fired a shotgun before! <:-}
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 20, 2006 12:32 PM (nacM2)
4
Jones should go back to wqatching CSI rather than pretending he actually knows something about it. Sheesh...
Posted by: Specter at February 20, 2006 12:41 PM (ybfXM)
5
Excellent post, I've said much the same in arguing this issue...
Without the same gun, same choke, same ammo, and same environmental conditions (esp wind) you can not replicate the pattern. You would get close, but not enough for a court trial.
Posted by: Keith, Indy at February 20, 2006 03:35 PM (pVUxX)
6
Jones is totally b.s. Any hunter knows that bird shot has a limited range and penetration that drops sharply with range and size of shot. At 30 yards it's doubtful that any shot penetrated Whittingtons clothing since hunters usually wear heavy denim jackets and other layers beneath. Even most of the shot to penetrate his facial skin probably only went thru the first layers and not deeply into his flesh.
Posted by: docdave at February 21, 2006 05:49 PM (cigln)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 18, 2006
When the Ignorati Attack
As I thought might happen, some gun-ignorant liberals are concocting stories about Dick Cheney's accidental shooting of Harry Whittington one week ago today.
Their basic argument is that Cheney must have been a lot closer than 30 yards when he shot Whittington becuase of the way the shot patterned.
Dan Riehl deconstructs and debunks their argument rather well.
The only slight discrepancy in Riehl's post is that jumps out at me is that steel shot is only made for waterfowling loads, not birdshot sizes. Steel has too little mass to be effective in such small sizes.
And so Dan got me thinking... WWCS? (What would Cheney shoot?)
To get such a dense pattern, you need shot that hold their spherical shape very well when exiting the barrel. Shot (pellets) that deform are aerodynamically unstable, will wobble, and will cause pattern spread. Extremely hard shot keeps its shape and enables the shot string to pattern better.
I present to you, Federal Cartridge company's 28-gauge # 7 1/2
Premium Wing Shok Hi-Brass copper-plated lead birdshot. The copper-plating makes the pellets harder, enabling them to hold tighter patterns at longer ranges.
Of course, if Taylor-Marsh wants to be thoroughly humiliated, I can deconstruct her articles one-by-one, but I think liberals are against torture.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:18 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
All I have to say is: consider the source's motivation. Hate has a way of twisting facts to make any argument seem convincing.
Most double barreled field shotguns are choked full and modified. Mine is and so is every other double hunter that I ever hunted with. Someone in so much brush so as to restrict shots to the inside of 30 yards may choose a modified and improved cylinder choke combination, but that is certainly an exception.
I've killed many a rabbit, squirrel, pheasant, quail and woodcock at 30 and more yards using my 20 gauge. Of course some have just kept on going after my expertly aimed shot, too. But then the game in New England aren't human sized, so pattern holes would have caused many more misses than kills at that range if my shot spread was so greatly expanded.
Unfortunately, hate is a powerful moticator.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 18, 2006 05:47 PM (owAN1)
2
I am an avid hunter and I can say that is possible to take down a bird with a shotgun at 50-60 yards. Beyond that, the pellets don't really stick, though with the right wind conditions, who knows?
Posted by: Leonidas at February 19, 2006 11:00 PM (Xu9JJ)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Saddam, Unplugged: A WMD Intel Expert Speaks
The selection below is from an email sent yesterday by a former soldier and defense analyst I've had the good fortune to work with on several stories in the past. These were his reflections on a recent television interview about the recently released "Saddam tapes."
Background
here,
here, and of course,
here.
Last night, Bill Tierney was on Hannity and Colmes talking about the Saddam Tapes. I was fascinated as Bill Tierney defended the information he claims to be present on the tapes. How eerily familiar he looked. I realized it was like a mirror for me.
I saw in him the frustration of knowing that the most significant reasons that President Bush led this nation to war against Iraq were legitimate reasons, yet the “conventional wisdom” is that we were at best wrong, and at worst criminal in that endeavor.
It looks to me to be the frustration of the vanquished, believing something to be true which was confirmed by your every sense, yet history being re-written round you as all that you believed and know is erased as flawed intelligence. This was obvious to me when he blew up at Alan Colmes telling him he wouldn't let Alan silence him on this issue, showing that Bill, like me is very tired of having to remain silent as idiots who have no first hand experience to the subject constantly define and redefine the issue.
Yes I recognize his frustration and for that reason I lend his words great credence on this matter. I get you Bill. Bill “knows”.
He made one bad mistake. He brought his evidence to what would seem to be the P.T. Barnum of our age, John Loftus. More and more it appears this intelligence summit is crumbling. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to choose the Loftus intelligence summit to be the vehicle of disclosure. It was a mistake for Mr. Tierney to allow John Loftus to take the tapes to ABC news for translation and reporting, a huge mistake.
Today, Mr. Tierney is reporting that the tapes were mistranslated and misreported by ABC news. I find this very believable from my experience working with translators with the Iraqi Survey Group.
How many people did ABC news have translate the material they had? With ISG, it was common practice to have important items reviewed by at least 2 linguists. Usually this was done by a cleared linguist as a reviewer, usually an Arab American with a security clearance. What provisions did ABC take to make sure that what it reported was accurate?
Often time's nuances are lost on a transcript, such as sarcasm. As soon as I heard the tapes I got what Saddam was saying. According to the ABC news transcript, Saddam said “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.” For anyone who has studied Saddam, you get the feeling that what he is really saying is “of course this is our objective, but we are getting our story straight here and now because we have told the world that we have no WMDs and this can never be traced back to us.”
Having worked with ISG in the audio and visual department, I was privy to the exact type of information that Tierney has released. The CD he has copied probably came from me or a coworker in my shop. I can not explain the level of frustration that I have had to live with for over a year now.
The Duelfer report was supposed to tell the story. It didn't, not completely. It is a fine start, but missing key evidence to form conclusions. What Mr. Tierney has in the form of those tapes has nothing to do with the credibility of Mr. Loftus. What is on those tapes has nothing to do with one translator for ABC news.
For these reasons I urge Mr. Tierney to immediately make the full tapes available to Fox News and disconnect himself from Mr. Loftus. I urge him to go on Hannity and Colmes tonight and show all his cards before no one is paying attention anymore. Wait and see until the full tapes are released and analyzed. Don't give up ground on the creditability of those tapes based on John Loftus. I watched Bill Tierney last night and he “knows”.
About the Author
Ray Robison is a Sr. Military Operations Research Analyst with a defense
contractor at the Aviation and Missile, Research, Development, Engineering
Command in Huntsville Alabama. His background includes over ten years of
military service as an officer and enlisted soldier including the Gulf War
and Kosovo operations. Most recently he worked as a contractor for DIA with
the Iraqi Survey Group. He holds a B.S. degree in Biology, Pre-med from the
University of Tampa and is a graduate of the Combined Arms and Services
Staff School.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:28 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Full tapes are available now on their website:
http://www.intelligencesummit.org
Scroll down to see them
Posted by: Richard1 at February 18, 2006 03:44 PM (vGy6j)
2
These tapes prove that Saddam was developing chemical weapons. If they were more widely distributed, the librul MSM myth that "there were no WMD" would be thoroughly debunked once and for all. It's a shame they're not getting wider distribution.
Posted by: Leonidas at February 19, 2006 11:02 PM (Xu9JJ)
3
I can sympathize with your desire to see this story play-out, but before you promote it, are you aware that:
- William Tierney, the former UN weapons inspector who translated and released these tapes (after stealing them from the FBI) has claimed that the location of Saddam's WMDs were revealed to him by God and confirmed by a friend's clairvoyant dreams?
- Tierney previously reported his findings of WMDs in 2003 on a talk-radio show devoted to paranormal phenomena?
- Tierney also has presented "proof" of Iraq's involvement in the 1993 WTC bombings AND the Oklahoma City bombing (for which American Timothy McVeigh was executed.)
- The organizer of the "Intelligence Summit" where the tapes were presented, former federal prosecutor John Loftus, has written books about the Bush family's wealth stemming from their support of Hitler during WWII, Al Qaeda's connection to the Enron collapse and other wild conspiracy theories? He has also claimed that a federal investigation into the Enron-Al Qaeda connection was blocked by Dick Cheney who, he claims, is in cahoots with Al Qaeda.
- The sole sponsor of the "Intelligence Summit", Michael Cherney, is an Israeli citizen who has been denied a visa to enter the U.S. due to his ties to the Russian mafia. And a key element of the story is how the WMDs were smuggled out with the aid of his nemesis - the Russian government.
- The congressional committee that is now investigating these tapes has called into question the translation done by Tierney and is having them re-translated.
- Many of Saddam's former officers have admitted to lying to him about their WMD capabilities in order to win favor. So even if the tapes do contain discussions of WMDs, such tapes have previously been dismissed.
If these tapes were real, no one could use them more than the Bush administration. But if I were you, I would follow their lead and distance yourself from them.
Posted by: T. Braseth at February 28, 2006 11:08 PM (h4Bce)
4
Mr. Braseth,
I apperciate your concern, but if you read this post again, my source (Ray Robinson) is independant of William "God is my weapons inspector" Tierney, and is a member of the Iraq Survey Group who handled some of these document and sources personally. I've worked with him in the past, and has never proven to be unreliable.
If he says that these or other similar evidence collected bears further scrutiny, I'll trust his professional, objective judgement.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 01, 2006 12:04 AM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 17, 2006
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 3
Harry Whittington did something today that confounded millions. He apologized:
"This past weekend encompassed all of us in a cloud of misfortune and a sadness that is not easy to explain, especially to those who are not familiar with the great sport of quail hunting," said Austin attorney Harry Whittington, who was discharged from the hospital Friday. "We all assume certain risks in whatever we do ... accidents do and will happen and that's what happened."
He added: "My family and I are deeply sorry for all Vice President Cheney and his family had to deal with this week. ...We hope he will continue to come to Texas and seek the relaxation he deserves."
Once upon a time, such an honorable speech would have been notable. In these days, however, honor seems hardly understood.
Harry Whittington and Dick Cheney both made mistakes one week ago that ended with the Vice President felling his Whittington in the Texas brush country. Many experts - some real, some imagined - hold the Vice President solely responsible for accident. This is not right, as hunters -
all hunters - have a responsibility to know where their companions are and should be, and this lack of knowledge not only led to Cheney shooting Whittington, it put Whittington in a position where he could be shot.
Luckily, both men survived with a harsh lesson learned. In this sue-happy culture, some expect and even hope for a lawsuit because personal responsibility is not something they understand. Harry Whittington
could sue and would probably win in court, but as a sportsman afield, he understands that he bears at least partial responsibility for his wounds, as Cheny bears the other part. As the media and the ever-aghast howl about non-existant conspiracies, there is something about honor and personal responsibility to be learned from this tragedy.
* * *
Tying Up Loose Ends
As for the many conspiracy theories floated, most were “reality-based,” but
far from having any basis in reality. Of those potential theories that did appear even slightly plausible, only two seemed worth exploring because of apparent discrepancies between different versions of stories told by actors in this series of event at one time or another.
The first item of interest was the question of shot size. While pundits right and left proved their basic firearms illiteracy by not knowing the difference between buckshot and birdshot, a more subtle question emerged when it was stated by the attending physician that Harry Whittington suffered a very minor heart attack as the result of a pellet traveling through his bloodstream and stopping in his heart. The doctor claimed that the pellet was "roughly 5mm" in size.
While inconsequential to most, I knew that the #7/ 1/2 shells fired by the Vice President do not contain pellets nearly that size, and after
a little bit of digging, determined that the size shot claimed by the doctor isn't even made for the relatively uncommon 28-gauge cartridge favored by the vice president. Obviously there was a discrepancy here, as lead pellets don't grow.
The shot size issue has faded away, and profile pictures of Mr. Whittington today clearly show various small wounds that indicate he could not have been hit by the large-caliber “roughly 5mm” shot the hospital original claimed, putting this inconsistency to rest as a mistake in estimating shot size on the X-ray.
The second question was a
question of position, which I will readily acknowledge that after reading various conflicting accounts, I still cannot claim to understand. All accounts I've read establish the Vice President as being on the far right side of the group of hunters, but accounts vary as to whether he tracked the quail left or right on the way to firing the shot that hit Harry Whittington.
I still don't understand all the details, but the Kenedy County Sheriff's Department investigators on the scene surveyed the accident site, and felt informed enough to close the case. That they and the victim are in agreement makes me feel comfortable with the outcome even if I don't get it.
* * *
When all is said and done, this was a horrible accident brought about by a lack of communication and situational awareness between two hunters. Hopefully, both men with learn from this and recover to enjoy the sport the both of them and so many others obviously enjoy so much. If we are very lucky, other hunters will learn from this near tragedy as well.
Previous:
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 2
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
10:01 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
As far as these things go, are you sure some of the shot couldn't have hit bone and spread? X-rays are 2d after all- no way to tell between a streched pellet and an intact one.
Posted by: Jeremy Nimmo at February 18, 2006 02:00 AM (pkM4u)
2
A very valid question, Jeremy, but the doctor stated (I wish I could find the exact quote) that the pellet in his heart wasn't in any danger of hurting him further because it was not sharp. That would seem to suggest that it held it's shape and did not deform.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 18, 2006 09:03 AM (0fZB6)
3
I still would like to know the shell maker's brand-name. Bismuth makes 28 gauge shells up to #4. As far as hunting accidents are concerned, my father was an avid duck and goose hunter, and I grew up going out with him and his WW11 buddies setting up blinds on long island sound. One time another hunter (not of our group) shot my next door neighbor. It was nothing serious, the only shot that penetrated the skin was in his face and neck and was picked-out and band-aids applied. The shooting victim only required that the shooter pay his medical expenses, and stay the hell away from his blind for the rest of his natural life! I miss the good old days of the WW11 veterans; who needs so many lawyers!
Posted by: Tom TB at February 18, 2006 09:19 AM (y6n8O)
4
look at the photo.These are very shall shot holes, consistant with the #7 1/2s Cheney was shooting.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 18, 2006 09:21 AM (0fZB6)
5
I don't think your analysis is correct CY. I took a birdshot shell in the arm at 5-10 ft, and it obliterated my upper armbone (since healed). I mean it was totally gone. However, none of the 150+ bb's still in my arm are sharp. One worked it's way to the surface, and appeared to me to be solid lead, since it was so soft (could be wrong though).
Strangely enough, lead poisoning is not an issue to the doctors, though I don't understand why (that's a heads up in case someone starts speaking on long-term damage). Also strangely, I can make it through airport metal detectors unchallenged every time.
Posted by: Kevin at February 18, 2006 10:35 AM (o/IMK)
6
CY, if I may propose a modification of your positional reconstruct that might explain how Whittington got hit in the right side and yet was still to the right of Cheney?
Assume Whittington wasn't stationary when he was hit. He approaches Cheney from the right rear, sees where Cheney is and what he's doing, and decides to move to the center rear between Cheney and Willeford, correctly figuring that this will put him in a position less likely to get fired upon. He turns to his left and begins walking, perhaps angling a bit more to the rear to increase his distance. At that moment, the quail flushes. The rest of your reconstruct is just fine, it's just that Whittington isn't facing dead ahead, he's facing full left, exposing the right side of his body to Cheney's direction of fire.
What'cha think?
Posted by: Ric James at February 18, 2006 11:18 AM (vitGv)
7
Kevin,
Sorry about your injuries, that must have been a horrible experience, Still when shooting something with as light a mass as #7 1/2 shot, there is a massive difference in velocity from 10 feet to 90 feet.
I've been dove hunting on public field hunts twice, and all total between those two hunts, I was peppered or near peppered probably by no less than four or five hunters (explaining why I don't dove hunt any more). Luckily, we were all spaced 50-60 yards apart, and so it was more like being pelted with BB guns. When it comes to shotguns shooting field loads, distance adds (relative) safety.
Ric,
Your scenario works for me.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 18, 2006 12:57 PM (0fZB6)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Cheney - Perazzi '08
Now this is a poltical campaign sure to start with a bang.
Update: Not a
campaign ad.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
05:55 PM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
February 16, 2006
Brokeback Fountain
It was an illicit love... of water.
Sorry.
Once the pun comes, it has to be released... and hey, if you don't like that, there's always
Brokeback to the Future that has been making the rounds.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:17 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
And then there is Brokeback Quail Hunting. Cheney says before he shoots, "I wish I could give you up, Harry Wittington."
Posted by: Zhombre at February 16, 2006 08:15 PM (LAbmG)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Flight 93 Appeasement Mosque
L.A. architect Paul Murdoch's controversial Crescent of Embrace seems poised to go ahead in Shanksville, PA, as a terrorism-honoring, Mecca-oriented crescent:
The Project's last public meeting was the unveiling back in September of Paul Murdoch's winning Crescent of Embrace design, with its half-mile wide Mecca-oriented crescent. It is very likely that Saturday's meeting is to announce that Secretary of the Interior Gale Norton has given final approval to Murdoch's design, based on the insignificant design changes announced in late November. The design is now called simply The Flight 93 Memorial instead of The Crescent of Embrace, but the half-mile wide Mecca-oriented crescent is still there, as are all of the other Islamic and jihadist design elements of the original Crescent design.
Error Theory shows that Murdoch's redesign still appears to be a tribute to mass-murdering terrorists, not to the memeory of the brave passengers of Flight 93 that said "let's roll," and forced down a plane destined for Washington, D.C.
This must not stand.
Error Theory provides the detailed list of snail mail, email, and telephone contact information needed to make your voice known.
Please do.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:18 AM
| Comments (9)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Do you by chance have a link for Error Theory? Or the address....
Thanks!
Posted by: Chris at February 16, 2006 08:14 AM (PxX2b)
2
Chris:
Just click on the bold words Error Theory or the phrase terrorism-honoring, Mecca-oriented crescent in CY's original post. They are both links to the Web site.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 16, 2006 08:49 AM (nacM2)
3
DUH - thanks, Retired Spy!
Posted by: Chris at February 16, 2006 08:54 AM (PxX2b)
4
Communications have been sent. Didn't take that long, folks. Get those cards and letters flying.
Posted by: Ric James at February 16, 2006 05:25 PM (vitGv)
5
Thanks for the assist Yank. It looks like we are going to get at least several people from Western PA going to the meeting to distribute information about the Mecca orientation of the original crescent, the fact that the original crescent is still present in the redesign, and the fact that a crescent that people face into to face Mecca is the central feature of every mosque.
All the reporters who have covered the Flight 93 memorial have been sent this information and been asked to look at it so what they will know what people are objecting to. A couple of them seem pretty interested and willing to be fair. We might finally get the Mecca orientation of Murdoch's crescent onto the newswire, which could blow the lid off all his Islamic and jihadist design elements. Got a chance anyway.
Posted by: Alec Rawls at February 17, 2006 06:16 PM (p6TL1)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 2
I just read the transcript of Dick Cheney's interview with Brit Hume on Fox News, and it is obvious that the Vice President is extremely remorseful, haunted by the fact he shot a friend. The image of Cheney firing at the bird, only to see Whittington drop, obviously plays over and over again in his mind.
My heart goes out to Mr. Whittington and his family, and also to the Vice President and his family. This is traumatic for all concerned, and I wish for all of them to recover as fully as God and time allows.
That said, some of the details of this late Saturday afternoon hunt are still unclear.
Obviously, I'm still
very interested in discovering if the shotgun pellet in Harry Whittington's heart is really "roughly 5 mm" as Dr. David Blanchard claimed. Odds are that the good doctor was mistaken, and I hope that this is indeed the case. Ammunition using pellets of that size, which are more suitable for goose hunting than quail hunting, are not made for the Vice President's 28-gauge shotgun. I have two emails in to media contacts at the hospital where Mr. Whittington is being treated, and hopefully they will indeed confirm this is a simple mistake in judging the size of the shot.
Another thing that perplexes me is the relative positions of the three hunters in this incident. According to the Vice President in Hume's interview:
HUME: Tell me what happened.
CHENEY: Well, basically, we were hunting quail, late in the day.
HUME: Let's recall the setting.
CHENEY: It's in South Texas, wide open spaces, a lot of brush cover, but fairly shallow, but it's wild quail. It's some of the best quail hunting any place in the country. I've gone there to the Armstrong ranch for years. The Armstrongs have been friends for over 30 years. And a group of us had hunted all day on Saturday.
HUME: How many?
CHENEY: Probably 10 people. We weren't all together, but about 10 guests at the ranch. There were two of us who had gotten out of the vehicle and walked up on a covey of quail that had been pointed by the dogs. The covey was flushed, we shot, and each of us got a bird. Harry couldn't find his. It had gone down in some deep cover, so he went off to look for it. The other hunter and I then turned and walked about 100 yards in the other direction.
HUME: Away from him?
CHENEY: Away from him, where another covey had been spotted by an outrider. I was on the far right ...
HUME: There was just two of you then?
CHENEY: Just two of us at that point, a guide and an outrider between us. And, of course, there was the entourage behind us, all the cars and so forth that follow me around when I'm out there. But the bird flushed and went to my right off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. I didn't know he was there.
Here is where I start to get confused.
The three hunters - Dick Cheney, Harry Whittington, and a third hunter Cheney does not name, but self identifies herself in
this CTV article as Pamela Willeford, the U.S. ambassador to Switzerland and Liechtenstein, were walking in a line when they flushed a covey of quail and all three fired and brought down birds. Cheney and Willeford were able to find their birds, but the quail Whittington shot went down in heavy cover. As Whittington sought his bird, Cheney and Willeford went off "in the other direction."
We aren't told exactly what the course change was, but most people, I think, would assume a reversal of course of 180 degrees. At this point, the explanation becomes unclear to me.
Cheney and Willeford have apparently left Whittingon somewhere behind them as they sought a second covey of quail, with Cheney explicitly stating he was on the far right. A quail flushed, as Vince President Cheney recounts:
...and went to my right off to the west. I turned and shot at the bird, and at that second, saw Harry standing there. I didn't know he was there.
Let me see if I get this.
The two hunters had separated from Whittington and had gone off in "the other direction," meaning a returning Whittington came up from either the dead rear, left rear, or right rear of the party. Let's look at how this plays out.
Whittington advances from the center rear
First off, a center rear (straight behind) situation doesn't make much sense. A hunter would have had to pivot and bend to an excessive degree to have hit Whittington, who would have been on their inside. None of these AARP-aged folks would appear to be capable of that sort of
Cirque de Soleil contortion. Let's rule that out as a strong improbabability, (but not an impossibility).
That leave us with the more logical situations of Whittington angling in from either the right or left rear.
Whittington advances from the right rear
In the crude image above, the green circle represents Willeford, the blue circle represents Cheney, the red circle coming up from the right rear is Whittington, and the the black circle is the quail, with the curved, dotted line representing the bird's flight path, and the short dotted line between the blue circle (Cheney) and the red circle (Whittington) representing the path of the birdshot from Cheney's shotgun.
Assuming all three hunters were moving in roughly the same direction (towards the top of the page), what do you notice? A hunter on the right, swinging right, would have
most likely shot a forward-facing Whittington on the
left side. The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department incident reports states that Whittington was shot on the
right side of his body.
Whittington advances from the left rear
Now, I suppose it is possible for the shooter on the right to swing to the right and hit a person on their right side, but only if the victim turned aggressively inward, and it seems questionable that a 78 year-old man would have the reflexes to make that turn quickly.
It would, however, seem to make sense that a shooter on the left, swinging left, would almost certainly hit the victim on the
right side as Whittington was struck.
If the hospital is correct in estimating the size of the pellet in Mr. Whittingon's heart (and that is indeed the
major point of contention), then Vice President Cheney could not have fired the shot, because ammunition is not made for his shotgun using pellets of anything approaching that size.
In addition, it seems quite puzzling how a hunter on the right, swing right, could have hit Harry Whittington on the right side of his body.
I'm very glad that it appears Mr. Whittington will survive this horrible accident, and I'm glad that the Vice President has now given his side of the story.
I just wish what I've heard reported made more apparent sense.
Also:
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 3
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
12:02 AM
| Comments (55)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY, you're theorizing is interesting, but not terribly pertinent. This is the important statement by the VP: CHENEY: Well, ultimately, I am the guy who pulled the trigger, that fired the round that hit Harry. And you can talk about all of the other conditions that existed at the time, but that is the bottom line. And there is no — it's not Harry's fault. You can't blame anybody else. I'm the guy who pulled the trigger and shot my friend. And I say that's a day I'll never forget….
Which goes against the blame Whittington talking oints offered by the White House and others.
It is nice to see Cheney be this forthcoming.
Posted by: David (SNAFU Principle) at February 16, 2006 12:54 AM (lQlkk)
2
I heard on the news that Mr. Wittington is working from his hospital bed, I'm sure there's a lawyer joke in there, but I'm not going to make it; hope he gets well soon. Just out of curiousity, does anyone know the brand of shells Cheney uses?
Posted by: Tom TB at February 16, 2006 06:06 AM (wZLWV)
3
Using your second scenario (Whittington advances from the right rear): if Whittington had made a left turn to cross behind Cheney (and possibly Willeford) his right side would have been exposed to a right swinging Cheney.
My problem is in trying to understand how a piece of 7 1/2 shot made it through ribs (even going between the ribs) and through a lung to lodge next to the heart. If that kind of penetration was made, then the pellets striking the neck and head should have killed Whittington. Even an oblique penetration of the frontal area of the ribs is almost unbelievable for a piece of 7 1/2 shot to have achieved, especially on a human.
The piece of shot next to the heart is a mystery indeed.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 16, 2006 07:33 AM (X2tAw)
4
ftw: the diameter of American lead shot is calculated by subtracting the shot size from 0.17". Assuming Mr. Cheney used 7-1/2-shot the pellet diameter is 0.17 - 0.075 or 0.095". See: www.chuckhawks.com/shot_info.htm
Posted by: Bluepike at February 16, 2006 09:57 AM (xcmlK)
5
First my heart and prayers go out to both Mr. Whittington and Vice President Cheney, obviously they have a deep meaningful friendship. (and not the kind that liberals or Willie Nelson could understand)
And I really don't particulary care about the details, the 'magical' friend is somewhat interesting.
But what does strike me is the Vice President said the bird went off to the west. According to other posts I have read the incident occurred at 5:30 pm (I'm presumming this is local/central time). I live in Louisiana which is not too far off and that is pretty close to sunset this year.
So it seems to me the shot was probably a bad call, looking to the west you'd either be blinded by the sunset or if it was cloudy/overcast it would probably be pretty dark for making a snap shot.
Posted by: NRO reader at February 16, 2006 10:13 AM (hxILM)
6
In response to Old Soldier:
The shot would not *have* to pass through lung tissue. I am not sure if you are speculating or relying on a medical report, but if this is merely speculation on your part, I can assure you (I am a physician who has done scores of autopsies) that shot can pass between ribs (where only muscle is present) to reach the pericardium (the sac that encloses the heart) without lung tissue in the path.
If, however, you are relying on a medical report that says that it passed through the lung (it would be the left upper lobe), then that's different, and I would defer to someone who knows something about ballistics to comment on that.
Posted by: Pablo at February 16, 2006 10:25 AM (MG9M9)
7
There is a movie in this somewhere...........Perhaps Oliver Stone can direct........................
Posted by: Steve at February 16, 2006 11:05 AM (4M3qh)
8
I suspect that we're watching another interesting medical phenomenon, with several commenters having their legs come off in CY's hands.
Pablo, the doctors have several times talked about the pellet migrating to the heart. I'm not sure that we need to think too much about ballistic penetration. Expecting a 0.08g soft lead pellet to penetrate the intercostals, miss the ribs, and penetrate to the pericardium ballistically seems to be asking a lot.
Someone call Arlen Specter?
Posted by: Charles Martin at February 16, 2006 11:17 AM (oqRrU)
9
NRO Reader -
It's south texas, open fields.
Sunset in Houston is about 6:15 right now, it will be a bit later further south.
At 5:30 there should have been plenty of light (it was a very clear weekend here in Texas) though the sun could have been in his eyes if he were looking directly into it.
I think when a guy says "other direction" and "west" , etc. he's speaking in generalities, not for purposes of constructing a word problem for a math class.
Posted by: Tumbling Dice at February 16, 2006 11:40 AM (xUvMM)
10
So a 7 1/2 shot is about 2.5 mm in diatmeter rather than 5 mm. The doc is off by a factor of 2. A bit surprising, but not completely out of the question.
Posted by: ginger at February 16, 2006 11:41 AM (JP1fk)
11
So a 7 1/2 shot is about 2.5 mm in diameter rather than 5 mm. The doc is off by a factor of 2. A bit surprising, but not completely out of the question.
Posted by: ginger at February 16, 2006 11:41 AM (JP1fk)
12
I think the premise upon which you base the rest of the scenario is flawed. When someone says that they went off in "the other direction" while they are moving forward across a field, it doesn't mean that they turned and walked in the opposite direction. Remember, they had already hunted there. You don't just do a 180. Whittington's bird went off to one side of their direction of travel, so when he veered off from their straight line of travel, they veered off in the other direction.
One veers to the right, the other to the left. Or vice versa.
Posted by: GunGeek at February 16, 2006 11:43 AM (VrcpR)
13
Now, I suppose it is possible for the shooter on the right to swing to the right and hit a person on their right side, but only if the victim turned aggressively inward, and it seems questionable that a 78 year-old man would have the reflexes to make that turn quickly.
He's spry enough to be out there all day hunting, he sees the VP swinging on him, I think an instinctive "spin and crouch" isn't all that far-fetched.
And the shot got to the heart via the bloodstream, not as a result of the shooting itself.
Posted by: roogue at February 16, 2006 11:49 AM (p1s9n)
14
But what about the magic birdshot? Need more detail. Like did Whittingford's head move back and to the left, back and to the left, back and to the left? Toward or away from the grassy knoll?
Posted by: Scooby dooby doo at February 16, 2006 12:34 PM (cZdVc)
15
As an avid quail hunter, I find the VP's explanation entirely plausible. Assume the following scenario:
The three hunters get the first covey up with Cheney (C) in the center and Whittington (W) on the right. W looks for his downed bird somewhere in the 2-4 O'clock area while the other two hunters veer to the left and continue hunting. After going 100 yards or so they encounter another covey. Meanwhile W has found his bird and is heading back toward the hunt. Given that the terrain would include brush, mesquite and other obstacles it is doubtful that either C and the other hunter (H) or W would have gone in a straight line during any of this action. Say when W gets to the group he is coming from 4 or 5 O'clock behind C and attempting to walk behind C and H when C, following the quail's flight turns to his right rear and fires. It is entirely plausible that W is facing not "forward", but at a right angle behind C and H about 30 yards away as described by C. If that is what happened then C could have shot W in the right side of his shoulder and head.
Posted by: WillyT at February 16, 2006 12:41 PM (QsEbf)
16
The truth will come out. Chaney had no valid hunting license. The entire party was inebriated. Chaney was using birdshot made with depleted uranium. Before the "hunt" quail were apprehended by security forces, drugged and "softened up" in preparation for the hunt, then released. I expect these facts to be reported on Democracy Now very soon.
Posted by: Zhombre at February 16, 2006 01:00 PM (LAbmG)
17
No wonder you are confused. You begin with an assumption -- that Cheney walked 180* away from Whittington -- and then pile on one assumption after another. When Cheney says he walked in "the other direction", the most you can reasonably understand that mean is that he walked in a direction other than the direction Whittington walked in. That sets up all kinds of possibilities for Cheney swinging on Whittington as he was approaching from the flank.
Your life must be very complicated.
Posted by: RightWingConspiracy at February 16, 2006 01:17 PM (tQENo)
18
The linked report says "right" side, but includes a diagram showing left-side trauma. Which do we buy?
Posted by: J Garrison at February 16, 2006 01:29 PM (gyjAi)
19
zhombre,
Other than the fact that it is spelled "Cheney" you have other problems in your post. Cheney did have a valid hunting license. He did not have a $7 stamp for - what was it -"upland bird game" - something like that. If you can't find the link to the actual news stories about that, instead of listerning to your friends opinions, I would be glad to post it for you. But you could start with google.....
I laugh every time I think about this whole uproar. Accidents happen. To everybody. It is a done deal. Get over it.
Posted by: Specter at February 16, 2006 01:57 PM (ybfXM)
20
As WillyT mentioned, the area they were hunting in was covered by brush. It's very likely that Whittington, in a hurry to catch up to his party and the brush blocking his view, got ahead of the group. When the quail covey was flushed into flight, he realized his error and had turned to retrace his steps when he was shot. That would account for the injuries being on Whittington's right side.
This was a tragic error with blame on all parties. But, as Cheney said, it's the guy who pulls the trigger who is ultimately responsible.
Posted by: David Walser at February 16, 2006 02:14 PM (Yn3jO)
21
Well, something is certainly amiss...
If you look at the diagram on the Fish and Wildlife report, the left side of the body is shown shaded, while the right side of the body is identified as the side hit.
Why would a person that is swinging right "most likely" hit a person behind them on the left?
That would only make sense if you swung past the person behind you. In which case, you would have a greater chance to have seen the person before pulling the trigger. However, even in that case it would have only been a split second.
If you take the text at it's word, and not the diagram, the guy was hit on the right. That means that Cheney pulled the trigger before he swung past Whittington. Also from the diagram it looks like he only received part of the shotgun pattern, say 20% of the 180 degrees of a shotgun pattern. It would seem to indicate that Cheneys gun was aimed slightly above Whittington.
I'd recommend anyone who has questions on this go play or watch a round of skeet to see the dynamics involved in bird shooting.
Posted by: keith, Indy at February 16, 2006 02:29 PM (pVUxX)
22
Another thing wrong with your scenario is you assume that Whittington made a straight beeline back to the hunting party.
Posted by: keith, indy at February 16, 2006 02:34 PM (pVUxX)
23
No wonder you are confused. You begin with an assumption -- that Cheney walked 180* away from Whittington -- and then pile on one assumption after another. When Cheney says he walked in "the other direction", the most you can reasonably understand that mean is that he walked in a direction other than the direction Whittington walked in.
If I told most people that if they went left and that I was going to go in "the other direction," which way would the vast majority of people think I was going?
In any even the final police report is out. Make of it what you will. The police are satisfied, and as poorly written as their description of the event is, I suppose I should be as well.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 16, 2006 02:45 PM (g5Nba)
24
I'm hoping someone can help me out here. While I'm aware that Texas has rather permissive gun laws as states go (hurrah for Texas on that one), it seems to me that an unanswered question is, whether any one of us would get off with a warning for doing the same thing.
And another thing: why doesn't anyone have a problem with that?
Direct responses to my yahoo address on this issue (constructive ones, please!) are welcome.
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 16, 2006 02:59 PM (h5nwi)
25
It is a little confusing, but it would seem that Whittington hooked up with Armstrong at the cars after retrieving his birds. He then headed in the direction of the hunting party.
Posted by: keith, indy at February 16, 2006 03:03 PM (pVUxX)
26
If Big Dick saw him drop, then he saw him standing, which means there was a human in his sights when he squeezed the trigger. Conclusion? Inebriation, palsy, heart medication, dull wits or shitty hunter skills prevented his synapses from putting the brakes on his trigger finger. Since the first thing he did when he got to the cabin was pour himself a cocktail, I'd say the guy was hunting with a buzz. I know I always make sure I'm drinking when the cops arrive to my latest DUI accident.
Posted by: Harry DiBoner at February 16, 2006 03:05 PM (G9Ixw)
27
David - I would guess that it depends on a number of factors.
Severity of injuries
Flight Risk
Past occurances
Reliability of witnesses
Posted by: keith, indy at February 16, 2006 03:11 PM (pVUxX)
28
Harry - that's just pure BS conjecture on your part.
You are swinging towards your target in an arc, shotgun at your shoulder, cheek pressed against the stock. It is likely that Whittington was partially obscured by the shotgun during the split second that this happened in.
And you can certainly be so fixated on your target that you wouldn't see a person standing slighlty below your point of view.
Posted by: keith, indy at February 16, 2006 03:19 PM (pVUxX)
29
I do think you're overthinking this. If I saw someone swinging a firearm at me, I'd most likely yelp (okay, it would sound like a girl's high-pitched scream, but it'd be a yelp, honest!), then drop to the ground.
Whittington ain't as young as me. I expect he'd spin away as he tried to crouch. The direction he'd spin results in the placement of shot.
'Course, now, if Zhombre is correct in his conspiracy-type thinking, the Secret Service (notice the initials are SS? Coincidence? Riiight!) propped Whittington up, blindfolded, and Cheney shot him as a warning to Libs and RINOs to watch their steps!
Posted by: benning at February 16, 2006 03:46 PM (PGmbh)
30
Keith:
Granted, I'm no bird hunter. But I suspect a flushed covy of quail present a starkly different profile than an earthbound human. What with the wings and all.Isn't the hunter's first lesson to know what you're shooting at before firing? Unless your synapses aren't firing properly owing to them swimming in Cutty Sark. That's how you end up shooting a 78 year old man in the face, or wake up next to Anne Coulter -- a truly gruesome thought.
Posted by: Harry at February 16, 2006 03:46 PM (G9Ixw)
31
Here's a straight forward scenario. The party was walking north when the first covey flushed. The party fired, and all three shot quail. The VP and the Ambassador retrieved their birds, and wheeled back north leaving Mr. Whittington to retrieve his bird. Whittington does so and tries to catch up.
At that point, the VP is on the right since Whittington has dropped out of the line. Unbeknownst to the VP, though, he's coming up from behind and on the right. Another covey flushes. The VP wheels right and west, fires and hits Mr. Whittington as he closes on the line.
Admittedly, the official record on where Whittington was hit seems confused. As Whittington closes on the line, he almost certainly would be trying to make visual contact with the VP so as to get back into a safe position. He apparently didn't make any kind of verbal contact. Maybe he didn't want to spook the shooters. I really don't know the protocol. As he advances on the line, it seems likely to me that he saw the VP wheeling toward him. My guess is that it happened so quickly that he either didn't have time to yell, or that the gun's report drowned out any yell. Perhaps, he tried to take cover. If it was me, I think I'd probably try to turn away and drop. Given this scenario, it's feasible that Whittington could have been hit on either side depending on which way he tried to turn.
There are other plausible scenarios, too.
Either way, the VP is at fault as he has admitted. It seems to me, though, that Whittington probably should have let him know that he was closing.
Hunters' what's the protocol?
Posted by: Old Dad at February 16, 2006 03:54 PM (FcqTO)
32
Jeez, I would have thought the "depleted uranium" would have been a giveaway that Zhombre's tongue was pretty firmly in his cheek. We're not going too fast for you guys, are we?
Posted by: Assistant Village Idiot at February 16, 2006 04:30 PM (FZP+j)
33
Keith, Harry, Dad, et al:
Whatever the scenario, whatever the mitigating circumstances, even Mr Cheney himself is smart enough to know, that the ultimate responsibility for what happened, is with the guy who pulled the trigger. Anybody who has undergone one minute of training in the use of firearms (including any Boy Scout with a merit badge in Marksmanship, which from my younger days includes me) knows this. Come to think of it, I actually know someone who thought of this besides yours truly: http://www.lewrockwell.com/perry/perry18.html
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 16, 2006 04:33 PM (h5nwi)
34
Just to confuse things a little more the sheriff department's report says Cheney pivoted counterclockwise which I would take to mean to his left.
Posted by: James B. Shearer at February 16, 2006 04:41 PM (/LMed)
35
I'd like to congratulate Mr. Cheney on his concern for his friend (which to me more than explains the delay in reporting to the press) and his choice in firearms. The Italians sure know how to make shotguns. IMHO.
Last time I was out shooting, when tracking the clay my attention was on where I was aiming. So, if I was tracking to the right and someone was too my right I'd have not seen them until after they had passed to the left of my barrel. And depending on elevation, I may or may not have seen them if I was still tracking a target. Explains why he didn't see Harry until after shooting to me. Less focus on the air and more on where the bird was falling at that point.
Posted by: Jim in WA at February 16, 2006 04:59 PM (a9Ter)
36
David - nothing I've said takes the onus off of Cheney. I am mearly backing up that the explaination given is reasonable.
I've never hunted birds, but I have shot skeet and trap. Even on a tightly controlled range, accidents do still happen. If someone where to be walking where they weren't supposed to be, it is very likely they would have gotten peppered to some extent.
Shooting skeet, and hunting ground birds, is an entirely different sport then hunting deer, turkey, geese, or duck.
Posted by: Keith, Indy at February 16, 2006 06:35 PM (2LElK)
37
***
If I told most people that if they went left and that I was going to go in "the other direction," which way would the vast majority of people think I was going?
***
I don't know what the vast majority of people would think. tv watchers would say, "You'd go right." On the other hand, people who think before they speak might ask for more information (e.g., is there anything blocking you from walking 180* away from me?) The point I'm making is that your entire exercise is based on an assumption upon which you overlay additional assumptions. At the end of the day, regardless of the number of diagrams, it's only one of an infinite number of scenarios that can be asserted with equal authority because any assumption at the beginning is equally plausible.
Posted by: RightWingConspiracy at February 16, 2006 06:49 PM (tQENo)
38
It appears that the ranch manager actually videotaped the shooting! Check it out here:
http://collegeguru.blogspot.com/2006/02/dick-cheney-and-harry-whittington-star.html
Posted by: John at February 16, 2006 10:54 PM (uleBN)
39
Were we really supposed to take this post seriously...I thought, and still think, that it was meant to be funny. Everybody forgot to factor in to the account that Cheney was drunk and that he really didn't know which way he was turning.
Posted by: Mike at February 16, 2006 11:37 PM (9GIBf)
40
Keith:
"If someone where to be walking where they weren't supposed to be, it is very likely they would have gotten peppered to some extent."
I quite agree, Keith, and from everything I've read, including diagrams of who stood where and when, it all makes sense. But it still brings me back to my original (and as yet unanswered) question: "...whether any one of us would get off with a warning for doing the same thing."
Yes, Keith, accidents happen. The rest of us face consequences for them. Will the Vice President?
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 17, 2006 09:01 AM (h5nwi)
41
What we all have to remember is that there is only one Vice President of the USA at any given time. He has an entourage of Secret Service agents that travel with him constantly, as well as a medical detail. We can project a scenario from our own hunting experiences, but they don't match the VP's. He is never alone.
Posted by: Tom TB at February 17, 2006 09:45 AM (Ffvoi)
42
"We can project a scenario from our own hunting experiences, but they don't match the VP's. He is never alone."
Yes, but how does this affect the consequences for his actions?
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 17, 2006 10:19 AM (h5nwi)
43
David, his injured buddy is doing his legal work while recovering in the hospital, and has no intention of pressing charges. Dick Cheney has claimed full responsibility for pulling the trigger. What more do you want?
Posted by: Tom TB at February 17, 2006 11:00 AM (Ffvoi)
44
Headlines:
Kingsville Dispatch
"Sheriff Fines Cheney $100 For Only Wounding Lawyer"
National Review Online
"Shot Came From Grassy Noll"
Dallas Morning News
"Red States Poll Shows Cheney Shooting Was Justifiable"
Austin Statesman
"Cheney Says Victim's Quail Call Was Best He Ever Heard"
Washington Post
"Cheney Prevents Hunting Party From Field Dressing Shooting Victim"
The Nation
"Cheney Drove Shooting Victim to Hospital Tied to The Hood of His Car"
Texas Medical Association Bulletin
"Corpus Christi Hospital To Do Jackass Face Transplant On Cheney Shooting Victim"
San Antonio Express/News
"Sneaky Lawyer Tactics Don't Work On Cheney"
Houston Chronicle
"Personal Injury Lawyers Hold Candlelight Vigil Outside Cheney Victim Hospital"
Wyoming Tribune Eagle
"Cheney Friends Decline Fall Duck Hunting Invitation"
La Raza
"Cheney Shooting Victim Gets Emergency Room Priority Over Illegal Aliens"
Vegan News
"Cheney Shooting Victim Converts To Vegetarian In Hospital"
NRA American Rifleman
"Witnesses Claim Cheney Only Feathered Lawyer"
New Orleans Times Picayune
"Getting 'Dicked' Has All New Meaning"
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 17, 2006 02:29 PM (nacM2)
Posted by: the other bob at February 17, 2006 02:47 PM (g5Nba)
46
Tom, thou hast writ:
"What more do you want?"
In one word -- "consequences."
To elaborate (which would appear necessary...)
I coulda guessed what you told me without picking up a newspaper. I submit any one of us might have been looking at a few days in the slammer, if nothing else.
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 17, 2006 03:57 PM (h5nwi)
47
David,
On what basis do you make the claim that:
any one of us might have been looking at a few days in the slammer, if nothing else.
That is all very well and good to say, but do you have any evidence to support this? Accidents involving injuries are not necessarily or automatically crimes.
Posted by: Confederaet Yankee at February 17, 2006 04:24 PM (g5Nba)
48
"Accidents involving injuries are not necessarily or automatically crimes."
They are more likely to be when they involve a gun. At least in other states. I dunno, maybe in Texas, this is considered "just a scratch."
My point (and I do have one) is to pose the question of whether there would be consequences (there's that nasty word again), if this were to be the average Joe, as opposed to someone in high office.
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 17, 2006 04:44 PM (h5nwi)
49
Just another conspiracy, huh David? Forget about it...it is a done deal...Move along folks...Nothing to see here.
Better start looking for the next "Scandal du Jour"
Posted by: Specter at February 17, 2006 11:13 PM (ybfXM)
50
Specter:
I think you have me mixed up with someone who thinks Cheney has something to hide. I don't. It seems to me worthwhile to know how the law would handle this if the shooter were any one of us.
Fortunately, it took awhile, but CNN finally came through for me, by going out on a limb and interviewing local law enforcement about it:
"Though hunting accidents occasionally warrant warnings or citations, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department spokesman Aaron Reed said criminal charges are not filed in shootings that authorities determine to be accidental... 'There are no charges for hunting accidents,' Reed wrote in an e-mail, explaining that citations or warnings are sometimes issued for code violations."
Now this is what some people would call "a straight answer." Which is all I ever really wanted. That, and knowing that Mr Whittington is doing very well under the circumstances.
My work here is done...
Posted by: David L Alexander at February 18, 2006 12:34 PM (Pvd96)
51
Apologies David if I sized you up wrong.
There are so many people that feel that if something goes wrong somebody should face criminal charges nowadays, that I mistook you for one. It used to be that people knew that "accidents happen". Now it is "accidents happen and someone must pay." IT drives me nuts.
Posted by: Specter at February 19, 2006 06:52 PM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 15, 2006
Bad and Worst
The Daily Tar Heel student newspaper at the University of North Carolina has stepped foot into the Cartoon Wars.
The UNC Muslim Student Association, of course, is having a fit. Not that the image is inaccurate (in my opinion, this cartoon is editorially superior to most of the other cartoons I've seen on the subject, even if the cartoonist hasn't fully developed as an artist), but that the University allowed the cartoon to run.
It's real simple folks.
You can live in a country that values freedom of expression and learn to develop tolerance as a result, or you can live in a country without the freedom of intellectual diversity, and deal with stagnant minds and derelict cultures.
The choice is yours.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
06:53 PM
| Comments (6)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Does that mean we can't trash cars, riot, and burn foreign embassies? Awwwww.....I was so looking forward to that. lol
Posted by: Specter at February 15, 2006 07:49 PM (ybfXM)
2
The thing that annoys me most right now is the way in which the media is now anxious to show all those additional Abu Ghraib photos to further endanger American military and civilian personnel overseas, but the pussies won't show the satirical cartoons.
What a bunch of two-faced cowards. They are scared for themselves, but they could give a sh*t less when it comes to Americans in harms way.
Hypocritical traitors!
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 15, 2006 07:57 PM (nacM2)
3
Spy,
That has bothered me for years. I remember being overseas in some places and hearing news reports that were totally blown out of proportion. In my younger days when I first left the country, I though it was chalked up to not getting the facts right. The longer it went on the more I realized the facts were there, just not being viewed objectively. The worst spin sells the newspapers. That's probably why I don't get one delivered (except coupon Sunday).
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 16, 2006 06:18 AM (cqZXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
HillaryCare, Part II
Somehow, this seems so familiar...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:22 AM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Sounds like they have it all covered, but I still think the pigs will be more equal.
The one thing socialism never seems to factor in is human nature, which tends toward "self interest" as the primary motivating factor in life. That will always be the clod in socialisms churn.
Posted by: Fish at February 15, 2006 11:33 AM (KpjA/)
2
As President Bush gets off the helicopter in front of the White House, he is carrying a baby pig under each arm. The squared away Marine guard snaps to attention, salutes, and says: "Nice pigs, sir."
The President replies: "These are not pigs; these are authentic Arkansas Razorback Hogs... I got one for Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator John Kerry, and I got one for President Bill and Senator Hillary Clinton."
The squared away Marine again snaps to attention, salutes, and says, "Nice
trade, sir."
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 15, 2006 02:48 PM (nacM2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 14, 2006
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll
Austin lawyer Harry Whittington was shot during a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney on Saturday. This afternoon, he suffered a slight setback as a birdshot pellet in his bloodstream became trapped in his heart... and what an interesting pellet it was.
Via
CNN (my bold):
Dr. David Blanchard, the hospital's emergency room chief, said Whittington suffered an "asymptomatic heart attack," meaning Whittington did not display symptoms such as chest pains or breathing difficulty. He said a roughly 5 mm piece of shot became lodged in or alongside Whittington's heart muscle, causing the organ's upper two chambers to beat irregularly.
The physician quoted is Dr. David Blanchard, director of emergency services at the hospital. Only “T” and “BBB” shot - at 5.08mm and 4.83 respectively - are close to that size range.
According to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
incident report, Vice President Cheney was hunting with a Perazzi Brescia 28-gauge shotgun using factory-loaded #7 1/2 shot.
#7 1/2 shotgun pellets have a diameter of
2.41 mm,
half the size of the pellet found in Harry Whittington's heart.
According to 28-gauge
aficionados, the size shot found in Whittington's chest is not made for the caliber of shotgun Cheney was shooting.
The most logical explanation is that the hospital equipment is merely inaccurate in measuring the size of the pellet, in which case they should recalibrate their machines.
If the hospital equipment is accurate, however, then someone using a shotgun other than a Perazzi Brescia 28-gauge fired the shot that wounded Harry Whittington.
Also:
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 2
The Quail on the Grassy Knoll, Part 3
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:34 PM
| Comments (19)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
CY-
An explanation of the disparity may be as simple as the radiologist being unfamiliar with the metric system.
Years ago, my wife had a kidney stone trapped where the ureter enters the bladder. A radiologist told me the stone was "about 3 cm in diameter". I laughed aloud - 3 cm is an inch and a quarter ... much too big to descend thru the ureter.
He wasn't used to having people laugh at him. He invited me into the dark room and pointed out the stone. It was perhaps an eighth of an inch in diameter - more like 3 mm than 3 cm.
So maybe the radiologist couldn't tell the difference between 5 mm (which is a little smaller than .22 caliber) and 2.4 mm.
Regards,
Bill Drissel
Posted by: Bill Drissel at February 14, 2006 09:58 PM (r8iMk)
2
Was Cheny on the grassy knoll? Or is the sewer drain?
Posted by: Peter at February 14, 2006 09:59 PM (zL7LO)
3
the real story is being covered up.the v p last week spilled coffee on the sportcoat of a visito when he got up to shake hands . it is possible that some of the coffee also marred the carpets. the sportcoat was apparently whisked out the back entrance of the white house in a secret service mail bag with diplomatic immunity.the stain may be irreparable,but no dry cleaner in 20 blocks will admit to trying to clean it,the white house is covering this up.why have they not admitted to this spill,or leak as they are sometimes called.Some experts believe this is a violation of the constitution,as no where is it indicated that the v p can spill coffeee without the consent of the senate.and why have two milk chocolates disappeared from the desk of the v p s receptionist,while the v. p s cheeks are definitely bulging.the whole thing is cascading out of control,and then there is iraq where reporters have not been asked to vote on the new gov t .O tempore o mores as cato would have said.
Posted by: j morrissey at February 14, 2006 10:46 PM (wZLWV)
4
This is very strange.........It appears that a shallow wound lead to a #7 1/2 pellet moving to the heart via blood flow in his veins..............That is very bizarre and it is possible that multiple pellets moved to his heart and that is why a larger reading size than a single pellet............At this point I'm going to wait for the info or this hunting accident, which is what it was..............
I've hunted 30 of my 40 years and this is strange, and bizarre.....................
Posted by: Steve at February 14, 2006 11:41 PM (v93s4)
5
Never depend on anything you read or hear from the dim-wit media types or the dim-wit politicians. Remember these are the same idiots that classified everything from a single shot 22 to a 12 Ga shotgun as an assult weapon. I'm now wondering when the education failed, thought it was in recent years but now appears it failed at least 20 years ago, for some like Dimmy Carter it failed 60 years ago.
The pitiful show put on by the White House press corp shows just how low they have sunk. I've ask the White House staff to deliver a case of lollipops at tomorrows press briefing to soothe the wounded ego's. Works for dentist and doctors with little children and the press acts like little children, but maybe not capable of handling a lollipop with a stick in it..wouldn't want the white house to be responsible for the choking deaths of dozens of rabid reporters, be faster just to shoot them or release poison gas in the room.
Posted by: scrapiron at February 15, 2006 01:41 AM (y6n8O)
6
I took out my copy of "Cartridges of the World" by
Frank C. Barnes, and was reminded that all shotgun
gauges with the same size shot and barrel length will have nearly the same muzzle velocity and effective range, though of course not pattern density. Therefore any single 7.5 pellet from a 410 will travel as far and hit as hard as any single 7.5 pellet from a 12 gauge. We all have to be careful out there!
Posted by: Tom T B at February 15, 2006 05:00 AM (Ffvoi)
7
Tom,
The question isn't velocity, but the fact that the size of the shot claimed by the hospital is not factory-loaded for 28-gauge shotguns like that used by the Vice President (and he was using factory loads).
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 15, 2006 06:45 AM (0fZB6)
8
CY, I can't find a factory load for 28 gauge larger than #6, so something's wrong somewhere!
Posted by: Tom TB at February 15, 2006 07:45 AM (Ffvoi)
9
Tom, the load they were using is smaller than #6, not larger. Also, someone on here was talking about the pellet traveling through the bloddstream and into the heart. I also heard a radio report stating the same thing. I believe you'll find that the pellet was against the outer heart muscle meaning it penetrated the chest and stopped at the muscle. It didn't travel through the bloodstream. Whether it was there from an old accident is a question that comes to mind if the pellet size discrepancy is true.
Posted by: Monkeydarts at February 15, 2006 09:02 AM (Mq+qq)
10
The problem is that the spokesmen for the hospital and the media are idiots. It would be highly unlikely that a pellet would make it to the heart with bird shot at 30 yards. Also, the man is in his 70's. At this age even the occasional errection will cause you to go into atrial fibrillation much less the physical and emotional trauma of a gunshot wound. I would guess that the concern about a heart attack comes from the elevation of troponins that usually occurs with any tacharrhythmia. Also, the physicians are associated with Christus. This is usually not a high calibur doc.
Finally I am amazed at the production that is being made over this by the MSM. They are carrying on about the lack of information being provided. They need to read the HIPPA regulations on privacy in medicine and they will find that it is against the law to dispense information of any kind.
Posted by: David Caskey, MD at February 15, 2006 01:00 PM (6wTpy)
11
David, I'm glad you made the point about a piece of bird shot (shot size 7 1/2) penetrating a man's chest to lodge next to the heart being rather unlikely - it just doesn't have the mass to make that kind of penetration. Besides, if the range was close enough for one piece of shot to penetrate, there should have been a bunch more with it. This makes CY point about the shot size even more pertinent.
It will be interesting to see what comes out in the end - no pun intended.
Posted by: Old Soldier at February 15, 2006 02:25 PM (X2tAw)
12
Did Halliburton supply the rounds?
Posted by: the man at February 15, 2006 03:19 PM (EDlAL)
13
Weren't there some pellets removed that could be measured directly? What's missing here?
Posted by: mr.ed at February 15, 2006 04:20 PM (VGD3c)
14
Never trust the media when it comes to reporting on the size of a bullet or cartridge. Back when the FBI was assaulting the Branch Davidian compound, the L.A. Times, referring to the Barret .50 semi-automatic rifle in the Branch Davidians' possession, described it as a .50 caliber machine gun which fired a bullet that is 5-1/2" long.
Well, a .50 BMG cartridge is a mighty big round, and no doubt it is a fearsome thing, but there is no way in God's green earth that the bullet emanating from a .50 BMG round is 5-1/2" long.
Of course, the L.A. Times gets most things wrong these days.
Posted by: The Annoyed Man at February 15, 2006 04:33 PM (RrfS0)
15
Well, lead's lead, not titanium. A spread-out shot pellet may well reach that size. Accident and media inaccuracy or not, it's a little poor-taste to take the piss here.
Posted by: Jeremy Nimmo at February 16, 2006 05:12 AM (beW0N)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 13, 2006
...And My Other Brother Darryl
This is the face of the
professional media.
Michelle Malkin has the video of an utterly pathetic attempt to mock a near tragedy.
I can only imagine Milbank enjoys popping balloons near
Jim Brady and making gargling noises near the
Kopechne family.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
11:27 PM
| Comments (11)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
select->modify->contract (choose 1... or 2 in this instance) ctrl-shift-i, and -bksp.. will get rid of the blue outline.
Hope this helps!
Posted by: Kevin at February 14, 2006 07:24 AM (o/IMK)
Posted by: See-Dubya at February 14, 2006 12:46 PM (yhNln)
3
The lefty media aren't the only ones cracking wise:
White House Finds Humor in Hunting Mishap
By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer 58 minutes ago
President Bush's spokesman quipped Tuesday that the burnt orange school colors of the University of Texas championship football team that was visiting the White House shouldn't be confused for hunter's safety wear.
"The orange that they're wearing is not because they're concerned that the vice president may be there," joked White House press secretary Scott McClellan, following the lead of late-night television comedians. "That's why I'm wearing it."
The president's brother, Florida Gov.
Jeb Bush, took a similar jab after slapping an orange sticker on his chest from the Florida Farm Bureau that read, "No Farmers, No Food."
Posted by: ArthurStone at February 14, 2006 03:09 PM (r6D+3)
4
The White House is just as classy as Milbank:
http://allintensivepurposes.blogspot.com/2006/02/seeing-orange.html
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 14, 2006 06:16 PM (vOG0L)
5
Your questionable literacy is showing, Tyrone. The phrase is for all intents and purposes - NOT all intensive purposes Do you say things just don't jive instead of jibe too?
Posted by: Moshe at February 14, 2006 06:34 PM (nacM2)
6
Your questionable literacy is showing, Tyrone. The phrase is for all intents and purposes - NOT all intensive purposes
Go to my site and click on the FAQ at the top of the right-hand column, and you will see that I am aware what the proper usage is. I put up the FAQ because I got tired of responding to people like you who have decided that they're smarter than everyone else.
Do you say things just don't jive instead of jibe too?
No. Did you see the name Tyrone and jump to conclusions? Better check that FAQ.
Posted by: Tyrone Slothrop at February 14, 2006 08:27 PM (vOG0L)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 12, 2006
Ugly Sarah's Dirty Secret
The paleo-Sheehan of the anti-gun movement has emerged in the wake of the Cheney/Whittington shooting incident:
"I've thought Cheney was scary for a long time," Sarah Brady said. "Now I know I was right to be nervous."
This is the same Sarah Brady that established the radically anti-gun
Brady Center.
This past fall, the Brady Center proved that they are willing to
make untrue statements about upcoming civil lawsuits they intend to file, apparently in an attempt to push defendents to settle potentially unpopular cases before they come to trial.
Sarah Brady
should be nervous, just not for the reason she has in mind.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:51 PM
| Comments (7)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Some dirtbags are these two - and the so-called news service.
WASHINGTON, Feb. 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- James and Sarah Brady made comments today related to Vice President Cheney's reportedly accidental shooting [emphasis mine] yesterday in Texas.
Reportedly accidental? Are they implying that Cheney may have dusted this gentleman with #6 shot intentionally? Then Jim Brady tops it off with a stupid statement like, "Now I understand why Dick Cheney keeps asking me to go hunting with him." Sure, Jimbo. Cheney is out to kill you off for being against the NRA. What a pair of idiots these two are!
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 13, 2006 09:11 AM (nacM2)
2
"What a pair of idiots these two are!"
Completely-and-utterly-devoid-of-class idiots, to boot. I am firmly convinced there's a special place reserved in hell for the both of them for their relentless campaign to deny Americans their natural right of self-defense.
Posted by: TexasRugerman at February 14, 2006 07:01 AM (luLey)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
Painful Lessons
This will be liberal blog fodder until 2009. Via the Associated Press.
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a companion during a weekend quail hunting trip in Texas, spraying the fellow hunter in the face and chest with shotgun pellets.
Harry Whittington, a millionaire attorney from Austin, was "alert and doing fine" in a Corpus Christi hospital Sunday after he was shot by Cheney on a ranch in south Texas, said Katharine Armstrong, the property's owner.
[snip]
Armstrong said she was watching from a car while Cheney, Whittington and another hunter got out of the vehicle to shoot at a covey of quail.
Whittington shot a bird and went to look for it in the tall grass, while Cheney and the third hunter walked to another spot and discovered a second covey.
Whittington "came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn't signal them or indicate to them or announce himself," Armstrong said.
"The vice president didn't see him," she continued. "The covey flushed and the vice president picked out a bird and was following it and shot. And by god, Harry was in the line of fire and got peppered pretty good."
Luckily, Mr. Whittington's wounds, while painful, are not life-threatening, and the presiding officer of the
Texas Funeral Service Commission will not yet become a client.
Some will enjoy blaming the Vice President for this one, but Harry Whittington bears a large degree of the blame for his shooting. You simply
do not come up behind a hunter unannounced, especially while bird hunting when a passing shot is a distinct possibility.
I'd guess (this is hypothetical) that Whittington, having been shot in his right side, came up from the left rear quadrant of the Vice President. If the Vice President is a right-handed shooter as the majority of people are, Whittington would have been in Cheney's blind spot as he swung on a bird passing right-to-left. There is very little the Vice President could have done, except, perhaps, having gone hunting with someone a
little more intelligent.
Regardless, I hope Whittington has learned something from this very painful experience.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
07:54 PM
| Comments (20)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
Well, VPOTUS did shoot a lawyer.
Posted by: chsw10605 at February 12, 2006 11:42 PM (0Qa4V)
2
It happens several times a day in the U.S. and some of the people I have bird hunted with didn't do it by accident but would hang back until you got 40-50 yards ahead of them and burn you good. Field loads are really low powered ammo and would only be fatal to a human at close range.
Now if someone can talk Hanoi John, Dusty Reid, the Coward Howard and/or Hellary into going i'll be happy to provide a few boxes of Winchester XX 3in 00 Buck that will do the job.
Actually it's really funny, but guess the non-hunters and the super stupid (don't know a single barrel shotgun from a 50 cal machine gun and tried to ban them all) will have a field day with it.
Posted by: scrapiron at February 13, 2006 12:33 AM (wZLWV)
3
Sorry CY, but you got this one wrong. Group hunt safety is very clear on issues like this: Don't take the shot until you are sure of the target.
It's that simple. I've seen this exact same situation avoided more times than I care to admit.
Theestablished rules apply to EVERYONE is the hunt group, especially those with firearms, and they are:
Always establish zones of fire. Know where you can and can not shoot. Obviously, they got out of the car, did not establiish zones of fire. If they had, Harrington would have known where not to go, and the VP would know when his shot zone was in and was out of range. They did not establish shoot zones. First mistake.
Always identify your target before shooting. This is the shooters responsibility. This was not done, and it is entirely the shooters fault. This was the VP.
When in doubt, don't shoot. Again, the VP's responsibility.
So, by my count, Harrington disobeyed one essential rule of hunting, he did not establish a shooting zone with the others and thus he entered an area of fire.
Cheney disobeyed two rules of hunting: He did not establish a shooting zone, he did not indentify the target before pulling the trigger.
These are rules that I myself learned quite well as a Boy Scout and thereafter.
Make excues, you are wrong. Cheney took the shot.
Simple as that.
Posted by: David (SNAFU Principle) at February 13, 2006 01:42 AM (EHcCx)
4
By the way I read it, he had a clear target he was following in his sights (focusing on a target can make you get tunnel vision). I'll agree to the target zone/clear fire area but if you are following something as quick as a bird, your sight moves quickly and if Harrington moved up from the blind spot without announcing himself. This doesn't excuse all involved because gun safety should be number one. I hope this has a good outcome and pushes Gun Safety and not a bad one that pushes Gun Abolishment.
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 13, 2006 06:29 AM (Mv/2X)
5
David,
We're going to have to disagree on this one. Cheney more than likely had a zone established, which Whittington then moved into from the rear, probably quartering in. Cheney did establish a target, swung through, and fired. Whittington bears the bulk of the responsibility of this one, just as would a pedestrian that walked into on-coming traffic.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 13, 2006 07:08 AM (0fZB6)
Posted by: Retired Navy at February 13, 2006 09:39 AM (FzhYM)
7
The bottom line is this is just a minor bump along the way of history. It was an accident - plain and simple. It was a good thing it was bird shot. Unfortunately the left and MSM have decided to make it an issue. You know - it's probably bdcause Bush didn't implement stringent controls of bird shot, Whittington probably works for some competitor of Halliburton, bird shot caused Katrina....you know something like that. I saw on another site the following: "I'd rather go hunting with Cheney that for a drive with Kennedy."
So go ahead lefties - try to make a big deal out of nothing. Another "Scandal du Jour" from the "Society of Subversion". Where does it end?
Posted by: Specter at February 13, 2006 09:42 AM (ybfXM)
8
The news reports are ridiculous; most say Whittington was hit by buckshot, some say bullets. There must be some very big mean quail in south Texas!
Posted by: Tom TB at February 13, 2006 02:40 PM (y6n8O)
9
Were any of you there on Saturday during the shooting? If not, isn't it a bit pointless to sit there and fantasize about shooting zones and how Cheney and Whittington were "quartering in?" Cheney couldn't even get the right paperwork together, so how do any of you even know if he was following the appropriate protocols in the first place?
This is as bad as the Kennedy-conspiracy-cover-up freaks.
Also, sadly, the shot didn't prove "not life-threaning." Now he has birdshot lodged in his heart which could likely trigger another - that's right, he's already had one as a result of the shooting - heart attack.
Too bad.
Posted by: Questioning at February 14, 2006 02:31 PM (Oj4Hb)
10
Questioning,
I've been on game drives for various species of animals from birds to deer working with groups of hunters from two to more than dozen, so I have practical, firsthand subject knowledge. Just how much bird hunting have you done?
Cheney obtained an out-of-state license an other traditional doumentation, but did not obtain a new upland permit issued for the first time in Texas, just this season. That does not relate in any way to his hunting experience, or prowess or safety protocols, which acording to witnesses who have hunted with Cheney, is very good.
As a matter of practical hunting and common sense, a man coming in to a group has the responsibility of letting the other hunters know he is approaching, especially when pass shooting.
You also do not read any better than you shoot or talk about shooting; Whittington's doctor's have made it readily apparent that this is not a life threatening event.
Of course, the hospital spokesmen are proving to be as clueless as some of the media.
The Fox News story referred to the pellet in Whittington's heart as being the size of a BB (4.5mm), while the CNN story claims it is even larger, at 5 mm.
Cheney was shooting 7 1/2 shot in his gun, and 7 1/2 shot is just 2.41 mm, or half the size claimed by these hospital, either two pellets are side-by-side, or they have the measurements wrong.
I think it's time for another doctor to read those X-rays.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 14, 2006 03:11 PM (g5Nba)
11
Questioning,
Are you perhaps referring, with an extended interpretation all your own, to this article?
Hunter Shot by Cheney Has Heart Attack
By LYNN BREZOSKY and NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writers
I think you should read it again:
The victim, Harry Whittington, was immediately moved back to the intensive care unit for further treatment, said Peter Banko, the administrator at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial in Texas.
Banko said there was an irregularity in the heartbeat caused by a pellet, and doctors performed a cardiac catheterization. Whittington expressed a desire to leave the hospital, but Banko said he would probably stay for another week to make sure more shot doesn't move to other organs or to other part of his body.
"Some of the birdshot appears to have moved and lodged into part of his heart in what we would say is a minor heart attack," Banko said in a news conference outside the hospital.
David Blanchard, chief of emergency care, called it "a silent heart attack, an asymptomatic heart attack. He's not had a heart attack in the traditional sense."
The doctors said Whittington did not experience symptoms of a heart attack or any other problems. They left the birdshot in place and said he could live a healthy life with it there.
So where is the big deal? A pellet moved into his heart. The doctors caught it. They say he will live a normal, healthy life. Move on to the next "Scandal du Jour" brought to you by the traitors of the Democratic Party. Nothing to see here folks....move along.
Posted by: Specter at February 14, 2006 03:33 PM (ybfXM)
12
Specter -
I don't think there's any reason for you to be rude, right? I was only commenting on CY's assertion that this is a "not life-threatening" injury. So, you think a heart attack and the potential of unremoved birdshot to move to other organs is not life-threatening?
Also, maybe you should read the reports again yourself. They didn't catch anything - the pellet is still in his heart and they do not know how to remove it, hence the reference that it could still cause another heart attack.
As for the "nothing to see here folks," if Wittingdon suffers another heart attack or worse, would that be something worth taking a gander?
Posted by: Questioning at February 14, 2006 05:13 PM (UN2Uu)
13
CY, The shooter always bears final call. That is basic hunting.
Everyone knows that.
Don't pull the trigger until you are sure of the target.
This is drilled into a shooter again and again in exactly the scenario that unfolded for Cheney.
Blindside, moving left or right, track target, confirm target, shoot.
Whittington bears the bulk of the responsibility of this one, just as would a pedestrian that walked into on-coming traffic.
Your analogy is not correct. Whittington did not knowingly "walk into traffic" that is, an area of danger. He obviously was not clear on it. The entire group bares that burden.
Again, don't take the shot. Cheney made the classic mistake. He put the trigger before the target.
It happens a lot.
But, blaming the victim is just nonsense.
Now, if it comes out that Whittington was fast behind brush, and was not in Cheney's line of sight, and the pellet spray cut through brush to get to Whittington, that would be another thing entirely. But, none of the reports have stated that.
Distance seemed to have been the culprint. And, putting trigger before target.
Posted by: David (SNAFU Principle) at February 14, 2006 09:10 PM (N33d7)
14
Questioning,
I beg to differ. When you said:
Questioning said:
Also, sadly, the shot didn't prove "not life-threaning." Now he has birdshot lodged in his heart which could likely trigger another - that's right, he's already had one as a result of the shooting - heart attack.
You were being condescending and trying to make more of the accident than was there to begin with. Note, you said:
Emphasizing what Questioning said:
the shot didn't prove "not life-threaning."
Other than the double negative, what you were saying was that Whittington had a life threatining heart attack. You also stated that Whittington could "likely" have another.
Of course, that was your opinion. But it IS NOT what the doctor's said, and if you had actually read my post and followed the link to that article you would have realized that.
But undeterred by your utterances, I will reiterate for you (from the updated article here):
Whittington suffered a "silent heart attack" _ obstructed blood flow, but without the classic heart-attack symptoms of pain and pressure, according to doctors at Christus Spohn Hospital Corpus Christi-Memorial.
The doctors said they decided to treat the situation conservatively and leave the pellet alone rather than operate to remove it. They said they are highly optimistic Whittington will recover and live a healthy life with the pellet in him.
And now Harry "Even though I Got $68,000 I didn't take the Money" Reid is saying that the delay in notifying the poor, poor reporters was indicative of the way the WH is being run. What a load of BS.
I guess that just goes to show how the WH was run under Clinton - you remember - when Hillary delayed releasing Vince Foster's suicide note for 48 hours...
Get a grip - It was an accident. Nothing more.
Posted by: Specter at February 14, 2006 10:00 PM (ybfXM)
15
Sorry - here is the link.
Posted by: Specter at February 14, 2006 10:02 PM (ybfXM)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
February 10, 2006
MoGoBang: Sportswear for Infidels
shop
Because real freedom means the freedom to be offended.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at
09:46 PM
| Comments (15)
| Add Comment
| Trackbacks (Suck)
1
I trust that clarifies my position on the cartoon war...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 10, 2006 10:46 PM (0fZB6)
2
Except we can't read it because that blasted pyjama ads thingie is slap bang in the middle of the page......
Posted by: Dave t at February 11, 2006 08:45 AM (QN6ti)
3
Dave t:
The ad probably blocks out the image because your monitor resolution is set for something like 800 X 640 pixels. You need a screen resolution of at lwast 1024 X 768 pixels to view things properly.
If that is not possible, the alternative is to upgrade your hardware.
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 11, 2006 11:39 AM (nacM2)
4
I have a question that may seem a bit silly, regarding all the uproar over the cartoons published in the Danish Press.
I have viewed those cartoons at Michele Malkin's site, and I do not see a connection between the cartoon figures and any real serious insults to Mohammed. The absolute worst cartoons were fakes, created for radical Imams who were bent on stirring the pot of hatred and capitalizing on the ignorance of some Muslim jihadists. Am I missing something somewhere? Or, are we all being subjected to Western-style Dhimmitude?
Posted by: Retired Spy at February 11, 2006 12:00 PM (nacM2)
5
Dude, my screen resolution is set at 1600 x 1200 and the PJ add still blocks out the text. So, this is PJ censorship, eh?
Posted by: WB at February 11, 2006 09:05 PM (D6wFC)
6
Viewing problem fixed now.
There was an open div tag in the post that was throwing off the formatting when viewing the page in Internet Explorer.
Posted by: phin at February 11, 2006 11:00 PM (DGPlf)
7
Sorry about that. I was out house-hunting. Damn things are easy to find and shoot, but an absolute bear to clean...
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at February 11, 2006 11:15 PM (2lbsG)
8
Ha, Phin, a likely story...
More like you were trying to censor the post like CNN--right?
You infidels are all the same.
And BTW, I thought Glen R. did a great job on CNN. Did I mention that he is from Univ. of Tennessee? That's my college! Oh yeah...it takes a Volunteer to put Radical Islam in its place.
GO VOLS!
Posted by: WB at February 12, 2006 10:30 AM (8smUc)
9
Retired Spy: resolution on Monitor 1 1024x768 Monitor 2 same. Latest Graphics etc.
I note that it was a coding problem after all.....
Hah! *flounces off waving feather boa over head in triumph*
Posted by: Dave t at February 12, 2006 05:57 PM (KA98X)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
<< Page 213 >>
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.746 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.7294 seconds, 168 records returned.
Page size 154 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
